Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2003-7919 G
CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Depositor Nam _ U �✓� � '�e. Address: D !" ' / �C� Phone No. tate Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: I. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER /l 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. DE OSIT BALANCE: $ Notes: AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordina Date C/J Supervisor Date Department Head Date DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date GENERAL PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER # (25 Characters limit) 101- 0000 - 218.00 -00 ------ Security'beposit - _ _ _ _ _ TOTALS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .LUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FINANCE DATE OF REQUEST DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant DATE S9 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438 -3155 FAX (760) 931 -0915 July 23, 2003 -* �`�' 0 � � 3288 -A2 -SC KST Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1149 5 Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 ENGINEERING SERVICES Attention: Mr. Randall Lee C4tY OF ENCINISAS Subject: Geotechnical Update, 525 Liverpool Drive, APN's 260- 413 -24, 260 - 413 -25, and 260 - 413 -26, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Grading Plans for: 525 Liverpool Drive - West," 10- scale, 2 sheets, Drawing No. 7919 -G, dated July 16, 2003, by Pasco Engineering. 2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 525 Liverpool Drive, APN's 260 - 413 -24, 260 - 413 -25, and 260 - 413 -26, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.O. 3288 -A -SC, dated May 31, 2002, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3. "Uniform Building Code," Whittier, California, Vol. 1, 2, and 3, dated 1997, by International Conference of Building Officials. Dear Mr. Lee: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this report for the purpose of updating our previous referenced report (see Reference No. 2). This update is based on visual observations made during a site reconnaissance, performed on July 3, 2003, and a review of the referenced plans (see Reference No. 1) and GSI's previous report (see Reference No. 2). The scope of our services has included a site reconnaissance, a review of the referenced documents, analysis of data, and preparation of this update report. Recommendations contained in GSI's previous report, which are not specifically superceded bythis update, should be properly incorporated intothe design and construction phases of site development. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnically, the subject site is essentially in the same condition as it appeared during the preparation of our previous report (see Reference No. 2), with the exception of the demolition of an existing residence and undergoing construction phase of development on Lots 5 and 6. Based upon our review of the current plans (see Reference No. 1), the proposed development of this site is consistent with that described in our previous report. Therefore, the referenced geotechnical report is considered valid, relevant, and applicable to the proposed construction, unless specifically superceded herein. Supplemental recommendations are provided following this section. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over - watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short -term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute -type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner. Over - steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should betaken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and /or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of one percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A2-SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over - watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend thatany proposed open -bottom planters adjacentto proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed -bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or non - erosive devices that wi I I carry the water away from the house. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e:\wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs -on -grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/CeramicTile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and rp for to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A2-SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenching Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be afactor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12 -inch to 18 -inch) under -slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to verify the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e:\wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and /or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading /recertification. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Priorto pouring any slabs orflatwork, after presoaking /presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea - gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • During slope construction /repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and /or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS /CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post- tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 FHe:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. PLAN REVIEW Final site development, foundation and architectural plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work ortesting performed by others, or their inaction, or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Ry Boehmer F- 0 Staff Geologist Reviewed by: Reviewed by: No. RGE w7c37 t<o. 1 340 c8rc ►spa Exp.�� 3 3 C. mT:f• John P. Franklin �C'`� C`�-�� David W. Skelly F ©F Cn� -��` Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 RB /JPF /DWS /jk Distribution: (4) Addressee KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A2-SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 8 GeoSoiils, Inc. ME ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT L WAS REMID 13H JUL 2L, 2003 J 0ii-I L- CHINT OBER NO - 0 8 "Q2 / i MORY J. 9HITH, CHTY RICORDER n Ni DI ESC . UL D 1 EGGO COUNTY RECORDER `S OFFICE Recording Requested by: TIME= 4:i$ PM City Engineer When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE,ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor's Parcel Number: 260-413-26 Project No. 02-276 CDP A. Mark Harke, as, ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 525 Liverpool Drive ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of CDP 02-276 OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, or any other COV 02-276 KST.doc (06-03-03) applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same. C. This Covenant shall run with the land, be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. G. Upon OWNER's satisfaction of OWNER's duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant". COV 02 -276 KST (06- 03 -03) H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER Dated �"' —/Kct" Mark Harke (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CITY OF ENCINITA Dated / f 5 �f� _ by (Notarization not required) Peter Cota- Robles Director of Engineering Services COV 02 -276 KST (06- 03 -03) ATTACHMENT " A " TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. TPM 02 -276 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 3 and 4 in Block 42 of Cardiff A, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof NO. 1334, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 12, 1911. COV 02 -276 KST`(06- 03 -03) CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss.� County of 604A l Fotm& c On before me, �1 0" 1/— l I e. bli o a Dale iI G� �ame and Title /Officer ( g., •Jane Doe, Notary Pucl f perslly appe red T Names) of Signer(s) � Lved onally known to me to me on the basis of satisfactory t i evidence DEBORAH FORMILLER Commission 1# 1349766 = to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are I Notary Public - Califomia subscribed to the within instrument and San Diego County acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed My Comm. Expinas Apr 6, 2006 the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITN7 my h nd and official se ( Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: I Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑orporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ artner — ❑ Limited ❑ General 1 ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: >l Signer Is Representing: 0 1999 National Notary Association • 9350 De Solo Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313 -2402 • www.nationalnotary.org Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1- 800 - 871x6827 7 A! A RE ON 11 - 2 2 3 1 SO JJLV 11 JUL U: i.." I U DOCUMENT INU M Ni7V T T I L, � �'Jlj RY 'T 1 UJU '\L.:'. ! I �,T r; Ell - COUNTY F`C`0 IT Recording Requested by: City Engineer When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor's Parcel Number: 260-413-26 Project No. 02-276 CDP A. Mark Harke, as, ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 525 Liverpool Drive ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of CDP 02-276 OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, or any other COV 02-276 KST.doc (06-03-03) applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same. C. This Covenant shall run with the land, be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. G. Upon OWNER's satisfaction of OWNER's duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant". COV 02 -276 KST (06- 03 -03) H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER Dated Mark Harke (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CITY OF ENCINITA Dated if 5 �� ` by (Notarization not required) Peter Cota- Robles Director of Engineering Services COV 02 -276 KST (06- 03 -03) ATTACHMENT " A " TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. TPM 02 -276 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 3 and 4 in Block 42 of Cardiff A, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof NO. 1334, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 12, 1911. COV 02 -276 KST (06- 03 -03) CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of J�l �('ID - I On before me, LA O" Date �( f ame and Title f Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public ") perso ally appe red � T ZJ ' Name(s) of Signer(s) 9J1 ❑ ersonally known tome oved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence z Z @MY DEBORNi FORMi ILLER Commission # 1349766 to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are Notary Public- California subscribed to the within instrument and San Diego County acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed Comm. ExOr" Apr 6, 2006 the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their, signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITN my h nd and official se I l Signature of Notary Public r OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer I' Signer's Name:] ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ �orporate Officer — Title(s): � ❑ artner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: � 1 Signer Is Representing: 0 1999 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth. CA 91313 -2402 • www.nationalnotary.org Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1 -600- 876 -6827 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND RVgVAL COVENANT I ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. A.P.N.- 2 S7- !.- �Ielo An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A," as the owner of the Benefited property described in paragraph two, Attachment "A," to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A," as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows: 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose described in paragraph four, Attachment "A." 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. 5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property. bp6603 7. Upon abandonment, revocation or completion, Permittee shall, at no cost to the city, return City Property to its pre - permit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. 8. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited Property, and restore the City Property to its pre - permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the costs incurred. 9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefited Property any past due financial obligation owing to city by way of this covenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non - negligent manner, in accordance with the terms of the permit. 12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. 13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee. 14. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this day of A 200. AGREED AND ACCEPTED PERMITTEE Dated: 3 x Dated: 0 f 0 7 Al (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached) City cKEncinitas NO ARIZATION NOT REQUIRED bp6603 CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLE ry _ State of County of On � before m a. �,4 Date Marne and Td% of oMicer te.g., 'Jane Doe. Notary Pubkj personally appeared fJanx(s) of Signer(s) O personally known to me – OR P broved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(ss�re subscribed to w hi instrument and acknowledged to me that h sh ey executed the same . hi eeir authorized capacity(ies), and that by hi er eir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), 1 RANOA G. MILL,IOUR or t e entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, GWNNn #I 38920S executed the instrument. SnOp Co� My U J, S 2007 WITNESS my hand and official seat. �4.�ta�GV signature of piv Pudic OPTIONAL Though -the information below is not required by taw, it may provO valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of. this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: D Individual D Individual O Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): O Partner — D Limited D General D Partner — ❑ Limited D General O Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee D Trustee O Guardian or Conservator D Guardian or Conservator O Other: Top of thumb here D Other-. Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: r Attachment "A" to covenant regarding encroachment permit No. Paragraph one: Permittee Tan Song and Raywadee Paragraph two: Benefited Property Parcel number 254- 690 -37 -00 Paragraph three: City property 5 foot utility easement near culdesac Paragraph four: Purpose to create a more secluded effect, design purposes. vi T/ vo -e r17 I" 4� AD" (75. S9 Geotechnical *Geologic- Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438 -3155 FAX (760) 931 -0915 July 23, 200 —; – 3288 -A2 -SC ti t KST Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1149 �' AUG 2 5 Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 � ----i � �''�i uF EN.', ^i�;';AS Attention: Mr. Randall Lee Subject: Geotechnical Update, 525 Liverpool Drive, APN's 260 - 413 -24, 260 - 413 -25, and 260- 413 -26, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Grading Plans for: 525 Liverpool Drive - West," 10- scale, 2 sheets, Drawing No. 7919 -G, dated July 16, 2003, by Pasco Engineering. 2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 525 Liverpool Drive, APN's 260-413-24,260-413-25, and 260 - 413 -26, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.O. 3288 -A -SC, dated May 31, 2002, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3. "Uniform Building Code," Whittier, California, Vol. 1, 2, and 3, dated 1997, by International Conference of Building Officials. Dear Mr. Lee: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this report for the purpose of updating our previous referenced report (see Reference No. 2). This update is based on visual observations made during a site reconnaissance, performed on July 3, 2003, and a review of the referenced plans (see Reference No. 1) and GSI's previous report (see Reference No. 2). The scope of our services has included a site reconnaissance, a review of the referenced documents, analysis of data, and preparation of this update report. Recommendations contained in GSI's previous report, which are not specifically superceded by this update, should be properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnically, the subject site is essentially in the same condition as it appeared during the preparation of our previous report (see Reference No. 2), with the exception of the demolition of an existing residence and undergoing construction phase of development on Lots 5 and 6. Based upon our review of the current plans (see Reference No. T), the proposed development of this site is consistent with that described in our previous report. Therefore, the referenced geotechnical report is considered valid, relevant, and applicable to the proposed construction, unless specifically superceded herein. Supplemental recommendations are provided following this section. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over - watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute -type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner. Over - steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and /or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of one percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -Sc 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 File:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over - watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open -bottom planters adjacentto proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed -bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or non - erosive devices that will carry the water away from the house. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 File: e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs -on -grade where tile will be placed. The the installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/CeramicTile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and 2rior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A2-Sc 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended atthattime. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenching Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be afactor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12 -inch to 18 -inch) under -slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to verify the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -Sc 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 5 GeoSoiils, Inc. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and /or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading /recertification. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Priorto pouring any slabs orflatwork, after presoaking /presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea- gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • During slope construction /repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and /or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS /CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post- tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3200 \3288a2.gur Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. PLAN REVIEW Final site development, foundation and architectural plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work ortesting performed by others, or their inaction, or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e:\wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 7 GeoSoils, I »e. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSolls, Inc. Ry Boehmer Staff Geologist � v. SK��'F,,,. r Reviewed by: Reviewed b Q ' R'0. 1340 y' ISO. RC' 7 :i7 Cert €!isd E 3 .5 CPS c;; :f -e inn ti ocist �e� / � Ci'JIL A John P. Franklin David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 RB /JPF /DWS /jk Distribution: (4) Addressee KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A2 -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas July 23, 2003 Fi1e:e:\wp9 \3200 \3288a2.gur Page 8 GeoSoiils, Inc. HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS FOR: KST LIVERPOOL WEST RESIDENCE n��d�� PREPARED FOR: MAY 2 l 2003 RANDALL LEE ENGINEERING SERVICES PE 1 140 L CITY Of ENCINITAS PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259 -8212 DATE: 5/14/03 O - ROFE S,'� No. 29577 Exp.3/31/07 i GNL GJ S o3 WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction 3 B. Discussion 3 C. Conclusion 3 D. 100 year hydrology calculations Basin Area A 5 Basin Area B 6 Basin Area C 7 Basin Area D 8 Basin Area E 9 Basin Area F 10 E. Hydraulic calculations Grass Lined Brow Ditch at 1% Slope 12 3" Storm Drainpipe Calculations 14 Area Drain Inlet Calulations 18 F. Appendix Isopluvials 20 Intensity Duration Curve 22 Runoff Coefficients 23 SCS Soil Classification 24 Node Map 26 A. INTRODUCTION The subject property is physically located at 525 Liverpool Dr. West in Encinitas, CA. The property is geographically located at N 33 ° 1'27" W 117 ° 16'31 ". The purpose of this report is to analyze the impacts of 100 year storm flows on the proposed storm drain system B. DISCUSSION Based on data, calculations, and recommendations contained within this report, a system can be constructed to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qioo to the appropriate discharge points. All drainage from basin A, 0.15 CFS, will be intercepted along a grass - lined swale running along the Easterly property line and out to Liverpool Dr. The minimum slope of the swale is 1 %. The maximum depth of this Swale is 0.25'. Drainage area B, 0.08 CFS, will also be intercepted by a grass -lined swale. The minimum slope of the brow ditch is 1% and the maximum depth is less than 0.25'. Drainage areas C, D, E, and F, 0.11 CFS, will all be caught in 4 separate 1' x F area drains. These 4 drains are to be connected with a 3" PVC storm water drainpipe and will outlet on Liverpool Dr. through the newly constructed 6" AC berm. The minimum slope of the pipe is 1 %. The hydraulic soil group classification for the site is "D ". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is modified rational. The program utilized is by Advanced Engineering Software (AES). The attached site hydrology map shows hydrologic and hydraulic node locations. Hydrology calculations can be found in Section D. See Section E for hydraulic calculations. C. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qioo to the appropriate points of discharge. D. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. 858 - 259 -8212 Fax: 858 - 259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 1140A.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 18:28 05/13/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.630 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 170.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 900.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.70 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 12.908 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.759 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 ------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 12.91 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.15 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. 858 - 259 -8212 Fax: 858 - 259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 1140B.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 18:28 05/13/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.630 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 61.50 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.96 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 900.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.16 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.108 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.161 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.08 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.08 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.08 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. 856- 259 -8212 Fax: 858 - 259 -4612 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 1140C.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 12:46 05/14/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.630 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 17.50 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.95 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 0.65 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 2.674 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.161 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.06 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.06 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. 858 - 259 -8212 Fax: 858 - 259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 1140F.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 13:11 05/14/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.630 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 83 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 18.20 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.95 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 0.65 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.266 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.161 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.03 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.03 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. 858- 259 -8212 Fax: 858 - 259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY C, E, * * �F �tsS R,Jt E lA2.c Too LMALt- - iv C,H�.C,��;C 1j," 12AT FILE NAME: 1140CDEF.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 12:52 05/14/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.630 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 17.50 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.95 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 902.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 0.65 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 2.674 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.161 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS E. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 525 LIVERPOOL DR. - WEST Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c :\haestad \academic\fmw \1140.fm2 Worksheet BROW DITCH A Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H : V Discharge 0.15 cfs Results Depth 0.25 ft Flow Area 0.13 ft Wetted Perimeter 1.14 ft Top Width 1.02 ft Critical Depth 0.20 ft Critical Slope 0.032598 ft/ft Velocity 1.16 ft/s Velocity Head 0.02 ft Specific Energy 0.28 ft Froude Number 0.57 Flow is subcritical. 05/14/03 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02:32:29 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road 1Materbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c : \haestad\academic\fmw\1140.fm2 Worksheet BROW DITCH A Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.25 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H : V Discharge 0.15 cfs 0.25 ft 1 N V H 1 NTS 05/14/03 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02:3 1 :10 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. 858 - 259 -8212 Fax: 858 - 259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 1140PIPE.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 13:41 05/14/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 5.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 900.30 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 3.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 0.11 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 0.000 FULL INTEGRATION EQUATION IS USED FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOFFIT CONTROL ASSUMED AT BEGINNING OF PIPE SYSTEM NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 900.550>;EGL= < 900.628 > ;FLOWLINE = < 900.300> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.90 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 5.90 ELEVATION = 900.45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 0.11 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 3.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 15.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 0.11) /( 0.884)) * *2 = 0.0154949 HF =L *SF = ( 15.00) *( 0.0154949) = 0.232 NODE 5.90 HGL= < 900.782>;EGL= < 900.860>;FLOWLINE= < 900.450> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.90 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 3 UPSTREAM NODE 6.00 ELEVATION = 900.46 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE -BEND LOSSES (OCEMA) : PIPE FLOW = 0.11 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 3.00 INCHES CENTRAL ANGLE = 62.270 DEGREES PIPE LENGTH = 1.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 0.049 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY = 2.24 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 0.078 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) = 0.2079 HB =KB *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ ( 0.208) *( 0.078) = 0.016 PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 0.884 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = 0.0154949 FRICTION LOSSES = L *SF = ( 1.00) *( 0.0154949) = 0.015 NODE 6.00 : HGL= < 900.814 >;EGL = < 900.892 >;FLOWLINE = < 900.460> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.90 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 6.90 ELEVATION = 900.89 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 0.11 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 3.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 43.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 0.11) /( 0.884)) * *2 = 0.0154949 HF =L *SF = ( 43.00) *( 0.0154949) = 0.666 NODE 6.90 HGL= < 901.480 >;EGL = < 901.558 >;FLOWLINE = < 900.890> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.90 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 3 UPSTREAM NODE 7.00 ELEVATION = 900.90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE -BEND LOSSES(OCEMA): PIPE FLOW = 0.11 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 3.00 INCHES CENTRAL ANGLE = 74.440 DEGREES PIPE LENGTH = 1.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 0.049 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY = 2.24 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 0.078 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) = 0.2274 HB =KB *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ ( 0.227) *( 0.078) = 0.018 PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 0.884 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = 0.0154949 FRICTION LOSSES = L *SF = ( 1.00) *( 0.0154949) = 0.015 NODE 7.00 : HGL= < 901.514>;EGL= < 901.592>;FLOWLINE= < 900.900> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 8.00 ELEVATION = 901.09 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.1 3.00 0.049 1.019 0.000 0.016 2 0.1 3.00 0.049 2.241 -- 0.078 3 0.1 3.00 0.049 1.222 90.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.0 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAl)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((Al +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00320 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01549 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00935 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 1.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.009 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.124+ 0.016- 0.078+( 0.009)+( 0.000) = 0.071 NODE 8.00 : HGL= < 901.647>;EGL= < 901.663>;FLOWLINE= < 901.090> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 9.00 ELEVATION = 901.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.815 0.000 0.010 2 0.1 3.00 0.049 1.019 -- 0.016 3 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.204 90.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 5 0.0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT== LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2-V2-Ql-Vl-COS(DELTAl)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4*V4-COS(DELTA4))/((Al+.k2)*16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00205 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00320 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00263 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 1.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.003 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.012+ 0.010- 0.016+( 0.003)+( 0.000) = 0.008 NODE 9.00 : HGL= < 901.661>;EGL= < 901.671>;FLOWLINE= < 901.110> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 10.00 ELEVATION = 901.33 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.611 0.000 0.006 2 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.815 -- 0.010 3 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.204 90.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 5 0.0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2-V2-Ql-Vl-COS(DELTAl)-Q3*V3-COS(DELTA3)- Q4-V4-COS(DELTA4))/((Al+A2)-16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00115 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00205 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00160 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 1.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.002 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.009+ 0.006- 0.010+( 0.002)+( 0.000) = 0.006 NODE 10.00 : HGL= < 901.672 >;EGL= < 901.677>;FLOWLINE= < 901.330> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 11.00 ELEVATION = 901.38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.611 -- 0.006 3 0.0 3.00 0.049 0.611 90.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 5 0.0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Ql*Vl*COS(DELTAl)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4*V4-COS(DELTA4))/((Al+A2)*16. UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00000 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00115 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00058 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 1.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.001 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+ (FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.012+ 0.000- 0.006+( 0.001)+( 0.000) = 0.006 NODE 11.00 : HGL= < 901.684>;EGL= < 901.684>;FLOWLINE= < 901.380> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM 525 Liverpool Dr. - West Hydraulic Calculations Area Drain Inlet Calculations CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap = 3.0(P)(D ^1.5) / 3. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE & REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW ORATE FACTOR NODE Q100 (CFS) P (FT) D (Fn 3* CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE 8 0.06 4 0.1 3 0.13 12" x 12" YARD DRAIN 9 0.01 4 0.1 3 0.13 12" x 12" YARD DRAIN 10 0.01 4 0.1 3 0.13 12" x 12" YARD DRAIN 11 0.03 4 0.1 3 0.13 12" x 12" YARD DRAIN F. APPENDIX to Ell c!J 23 cz - Z7- u7 Lr> LA— LZ.J Ln i ul 4L. t/ -s CL. 61 C Ir — Lr3 CN CK Q z < < w Li :e: L L) Z o z Co 0 J 0 0 oa co d vi C6 00 ti Z, < C> c) u V) C:: 1; Q LLI < LL- Cl CD r 0 z Ix < C) CL. CD 0 C) Lli __j U in LL - z -D #A U 11-A-7 ^ V r / ' O O V! Lo _ o j CD '\C L.tt Q I g / • `�/ - - ��, \•1,.� • oo /, \C� Y 1 _ P� ^ p Z k•� O ` • 6 J Uj cq CD p U D N f.-. a <U V CL O — N owo 0 u N c ?- Fes•- V o � � zC o M. o� O CL O r w Ow— .d UOts., Z� H N ..3 U u G ll_A 3 G: v a) S- O 04- O N - 0 r t: N O +J 4✓ C 0 d a 01 b > L —*2 2 r - 0 O .-- C > -, O Z t0 rt1 • N L to T X s L a) S v v r =3 to aj +J L) a) c - Cl r C cn z L S- C C U 32 C r rq O If O W Q a) 4- O r a) LO _ S- S- -r'• 'CI U VI C +-b a) CL (S) r +� Q H Q) C. 4-4- O -C S- S +- a) ro •r 0 .. _ •-2 +-) O a) Q) U= E v v C - 0 L N +J a) + - ) t - 0 a) CU r • t0 C C' O O >) a) O O C L O O C O - 4 N C Q Q) '0 O i ea -r- .O C ro O do .0 Cu O + - 3 (L) 4.3 +- 4-1 () C a) •r ` +- +- r- (1) •r- ..0 CO to 4- rJ 11 • L r-- +-) C L O.+•• +J 4J C r- M C L -. - 0 O r •r •r 01 •r 0) U O O S- C U= Q G O C U d E C U •r •r 4 C r' a) (I) •r - r - •r O a) •r C . . G b N a) C` O ( a) a) - a Q •r C ro 0- r 10- CL +j (1) N C E Cu ••- to Q 13. 0 i L a) C •r O S - L d S- •r O VI O 'C L (n R) C •r ••- O LL- +) O U E CL - C -r L4-) i L r r Q1 +-) LL- O 4- a) ro ro v i0 to .0 L U r C ro - 0 S •0 z L E i-) a v •.- U C a) V/ d r C 4.J •r- ct V1 t0 a) to Cu O O +- 4-3 C S- () to O) N N a) C +J r r U N O E = Ln =3 :3 •+) O +-3 +• 3 +-3 H O (2) c in n to CJ cn ro O a ro •n Ii +) L ct - its W -v .0 s O r 4- S- r-- .r_ G U U LL- N f - ter". O �' 4-3 +j +- IZ O O 0- N G. Q +- ►-� O r L Q CL: O r N M Ln Q O r N M � U z 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) Cz o Ln o Ln o Ln o LO o LO o _ Z - t• � J+ _ - - -- _ i 0 F+ •.+ —L- t--- - - -- --- - Cd LL X Ql - -- -- — - � - -- O 1J i 1 C I : I - t }-- �D •ri CL O /� +1 I a If If If in LO S. O — — — — - o e N � � - i •o � �i M N sua�ui APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 (.tnot� /Sayoui} �C�.i TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coeffi C Land Use Soil Group (1) A B Residential: C D Single Family .40 .45 50 55 Multi -Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Commercial (2) .70 .75 .80 .85 80*4 Impervious Industrial (2) .80 .85 .90 .95 90% Impervious NOTES: (1) Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. ( actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious- ness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50, For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C $O x 0.85 = 0.53 IV -A -9 APPENDIX IX -B Rev.. 5/81 OIE E)na LD - U- N J LL U I to U - U N U }- U ��. U L i t _w _ to w Ld Alp i U U v w_ !/ i i i U w i I ;1 ' I I i TABLE 11.-- INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT -- Continued Limitations for Map Soil Hydro- Erodibility conversion symbol logic from brush to group grass RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaB Ramona sandy loam, 2 to S percent slopes----------- -- -- -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaC Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes----------- - --- -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaC2 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded--- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaD2 Ramona sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded-- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RcD Ramona gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RcE Ramona gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RdC Redding gravelly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes------- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate. ReE edding cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes-------- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate. RfF Redding cobbly loam, dissected, 15 to 50 percent D Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. slopes. RhC Redding -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Redding ----------------------- ----- ---------- -- - - - - -- D Urban land ------------------------------------------- RhE edding -Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: Redding --------------------- ------------------- - - - - -- D Urban land ------------------ -- ------ ------- ---- - - - - -- D RkA Reiff fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RkB Reiff fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RkC Reiff fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. Rm Riverwash ------------- - - ------------ --------- ---- -- - -- --- A Severe 2, 4 -- Severe. RoA Rositas fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RrC ositas fine sand, hummocky, S to 9 percent slopes- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RsA Rositas loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes--- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RsC Rositas loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes--- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RsD Rositas loamy coarse sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes - - -- - -- A Severe 2 RUG Pough broken land ------------ ----- ------------ --- -- -- ---- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. SbA Palinas clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- C Moderate 2 - -- Slight. l/ SbC alinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- C Moderate 2 - -- Slight. T/ ScA Salinas clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes---------------- --- --- C Slight- - - - - -- Slight. T/ SCB Salinas clay, to 5 percent slopes - - - -- — Y, p p -- C Slight- - - - - -- Slight. 1 / SmE San Miguel rocky silt loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate SnG an Miguel - Exchequer rocky silt loams, 9 to 70 percent slopes: San Miguel------------------------ --- --- ------- -- - --- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. Exchequer-------------------------- ----- --- ---- --- - -- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. SpE2 Sheephead rocky fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent C Severe 16 - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes, eroded. — SpG2 heephead rocky fire sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes, eroded. — SrD Sloping ullied land------------------- - -- --- _ -___ P g g - - - - - -- B Severe 2 - - - -- Severe. 4 1 SSE oboba stony loamy sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes---- - - - - -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Moderate StG teep gullied land-------------------- ------- ------ - -- --- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. SUA Stockpen gravelly clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. Sub Stockpen gravelly clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. SvE Stony land------------------------- ---- ----- ------------- A Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. TeF exrace escaroments --- - - --------- ------------- --- --- - -- -- a - - - -- Se e idal flats ----------------------- --- ------- ------- -- -- -- D Severe 2, 4 ToE2 Tollhouse rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent C Severe 9 - - - -- Severe. slopes, eroded. ToG Tollhouse rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent C Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. slopes. TUB Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes------------ ---- ---- -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. Or Urban land --------------------- --------------- - - - - -- D VaA Visalia sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes---------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. tae footnotes at end of table. 37 N `; DROLo NoDg r�Np INLIMHM 3 5 1 I I: I T I II � PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE APN'S 260-413-24,260-413-25, AND 260 - 413 -26 CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR KST ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 1149 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 W.O. 3288 -A -SC MAY 31, 2002 S 9 Geotechnical *Geologic* Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 May 31, 2002 W.O.3288 -A -SC KST Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1149 Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 Attention: Mr. Randall Lee Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 525 Liverpool Drive, APN's 260 - 413 -24, 260 - 413 -25, and 260 - 413 -26, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Lee: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development, from a geotechnical viewpoint. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of available reference data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, as well as geologic and engineering analysis, development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: • All existing colluvium/topsoil, weathered terrace deposits, and undocumented artificial fill are generally loose and potentially compressible, and are not suitable for support of settlement sensitive improvements. These materials will require removal and recompaction if settlement sensitive improvements are proposed within their influence. Depth of removals are outlined in the conclusions and recommendations section of this report. In general, removals will be on the order of ±1 to ±5 1 /2 feet across the majority of the site. Removals may extend locally deeper due to buried utilities, septic tank systems, or irregular variations in the colluvial soils. • At the time of this geotechnical evaluation, a topographic map including the low relief canyon located east of the site was not available. Therefore, GSI schematically evaluated slope stability. An addendum report presenting slope stability will be issued when an appropriate topographic map is provided, if warranted. • Laboratory testing indicates the expansion potential of onsite soils is very low (expansion index range 0 to 20). At the present time, soluble sulfate and corrosion testing results indicate that soils have a moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated. • Groundwater was not encountered onsite and is generally not anticipated to affect site development, providing that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to fill lifts or sediments with contrasting permeabilities, site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. • Conventional foundation systems utilizing continuous footings and a slab -on -grade may be used onsite. • The seismic design parameters presented herein should be considered during project planning and design. • The geotechnical design parameters presented herein should be incorporated into project planning, design, and construction by the project structural engineer and architect. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC Fi1e:e: \wp7\3000\3288a.pge Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. /� Ryan Boehmer — s Staff Geologist 1 , Reviewed by: �, r� Reviewed by Q;' N0.1340 A Cr M ��:' -30 -05 v John . Fr k in .� , =�e �\� Albert R. Kleist ,� Engineering Geolo ' G>t+ Geotechnical Engineer; GE 76" RB /JPF /ARMh Distribution: (4) Addressee KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC R1e:e: \wp7\3000\3288a.pge Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES .................... ............................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS /PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................. 1 FIELD STUDIES ........................... ..............................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................... ............................... 3 EARTH MATERIALS ........................ ..............................3 Artificial fill- undocumented (Map Symbol Afu) ........................... 3 Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) ....... ............................... 4 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) .... ............................... 4 Delmar Formation (Map Symbol - Td) ... ............................... 4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...... ............................... 4 Faulting............................ ..............................4 Seismicity......................... ............................... 6 Seismic Shaking Parameters .......... ............................... 7 Seismic Hazards ..................... ..............................7 LABORATORY TESTING ................... ............................... 8 General........................... ............................... 8 Laboratory Standard .................. ..............................8 Shear Testing ....................... ..............................8 Expansion Potential .................. ..............................9 Corrosion /Sulfate Testing ............. ............................... 9 SCHEMATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS .... ............................... 9 Gross Stability ...................... ............................... 9 Sufcial Stability .................... ............................... 9 CONCLUSIONS ........................... ..............................9 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 10 General............................ .............................10 Site Preparation ................... ............................... 10 Demolition /Grubbing ............... ............................... 10 Septic Tank Removal ................. .............................10 Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) .............................. 11 Fill Placement ....................... .............................11 Overexcavation ...................... .............................11 GeoSoiilts, Inc. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ............................... 12 General............................ .............................12 Preliminary Foundation Design ....... ............................... 12 Bearing Value ............... ............................... 12 Lateral Pressure ................ .............................12 Footing Setbacks .................. ............................... 13 Construction........................ .............................13 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS ....... ............................... 14 General............................ .............................14 Restrained Walls ..................... .............................15 Cantilevered Walls ................... .............................15 Wall Backfill and Drainage ........... ............................... 15 Retaining Wall Footing Transitions .... ............................... 16 Footing Excavation Observation ...... ............................... 16 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ................ ............................... 16 Landscape Maintenance and Planting . ............................... 16 Additional Site Improvements ........ ............................... 17 Trenching.......................... .............................17 Drainage......................... ............................... 17 Utility Trench Backfill ............... ............................... 18 PLANREVIEW ............................ .............................18 LIMITATIONS ............................. .............................19 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .......... ............................... 2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map ......... ............................... 5 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References .... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs ... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix C - Laboratory Data ............................... Rear of Text Appendix D - Slope Stability Analysis Data ..................... Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ......... Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map ......................... Rear of Text in Folder Plate 2 - Schematic Cross Section ............................ Rear of Text KST Associates, Inc. Table of Contents F1ee : \wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page ii GeoSoiiis, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE APN'S 260-413-24,260-413-25, AND 260 - 413 -26 CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of five hand auger boring excavations to determine the soil /bedrock profiles, obtain relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters for the proposed development (Appendix B). 3. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program (Appendix C). 4. General areal seismicity evaluation, schematic evaluation of slope stability (Appendix D). 5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. SITE CONDITIONS /PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site consists of a generally rectangular shaped parcel located on the south side of Liverpool Drive in Encinitas, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The site is surrounded by existing housing developments to the south and west, Liverpool Drive to the north, and a low relief canyon to the east. Site drainage is generally to the southeast. Existing structures onsite consist of a two -story, split level, single - family residence and associated improvements. According to a USGS 1968 (photorevised 1975) Encinitas Quadrangle map, the subject site is at an elevation of approximately ±200 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). It is our understanding, that the proposed site development will consist of removing the existing structure and associated improvements and preparing the pad forthe construction of two new single family residences and one multi - family residence. Cut and fill grading techniques would be utilized to create design grades. It is anticipated that the proposed developmentwill utilize slabs -on- grade, continuous footings, and wood -frame construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. The need for import soils is unknown. It is anticipated that sewage disposal will be tied into the regional municipal system. GeoSoiiis, Inc. ID TopoQuads Copyright uJ 1999 Dei.orme Yarmouth, N1E 04076 Source Data: USCS Jl t Encinitas it .1 + S •n.. -� i •, •• � \ ; Holf Sea Cli N33•- , .County Park 1 } o� i. i � y , • � � �c-� .r � i� >1 �)1 , V. ,{'( r l • �• � � r 7 V I �. J i • ye s � �., -� 7 1 z) y'' \ S �� ` • 3R; ter, ` - ,j } _ �' , \. •• it � ', O1:' / •b}C • \ 1 a l' i ir .i II `ti �� _`� ( ,Q \ � I,i�J, N33•-9. SITE" i -h- Ca rd if r ��AhC"A7G$1,: ; �• "' � ` � �� 5 i) '1,• ti � 1 l' : 7 � i ' � Q � / a:.I. \ l li$C l . \ ewa • \,\ t rti.. , 7 � ; j `;' / ,'� - t o_: � ' 5 7 pawl - ` a f V, 1 ; TraiN3r Base Map: Encinitas Quadrangle, California - -San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968, by USGS, 1'_2000' 0 2000 4000 W.O. 3288 -A SC Scale Feet SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 FIELD STUDIES Field work conducted during our evaluation of the property consisted of excavating five hand auger borings within the lot to evaluate near surface soil and geologic conditions. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and in -place samples were taken for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of borings are shown on Plate 1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre- Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous period and Cenozoic era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous -age plutonic rocks and Jurassic -age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited /eroded within coastal and beach areas. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered on the site are shown on Plate 1. Materials consist of undocumented artificial fill, colluvium /topsoil, terrace deposits, and the Delmar Formation. Artificial fill- undocumented (Map Symbol Afu) Artificial fill was found to be present within the northern end of the site adjacent to Liverpool Drive. The artificial fill generally consists of a red brown to brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, silty sand. Thickness of the material is estimated to b approximately ±1 to ±5 feet. Artificial fill existing at the subject site is considered unsuitable for support of settlement sensitive improvements and support for additional fill in its present state. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 File:e: \wp7\320013288a.pge Page 3 GeoSoiis, Inc. Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) Colluvium /topsoil onsite was found to generally consist of a brown, dry, loose, silty sand. Thickness of the material is approximately 1 to 1'h feet. Colluvium /topsoil at the subject site is also considered potentially compressible in its present state. Accordingly, these soils are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and /or settlement sensitive improvements in their existing state. Terrace Deposits (Mau Symbol - Qt) Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlie the colluvial deposits and undocumented artificial fills. As encountered, the terrace deposits generally consist of orange brown to red brown to gray brown, moist to wet, loose to very dense, silty sands and yellow brown to gray brown, moist, medium dense, horizontal to sub - horizontal sands. �ue..to the,relatively loose and wea thered c ondition of the upper. ±.i- foot,._these weathered sediments should be removed, moisture conditioned, and, recompacted and /or processed in place, should settlement- sensitive improvements be proposed within their influence. This unit typically has a very low expansion potential. Delmar Formation (Map Symbol - Td) Although not encountered in the borings, the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation, underlies the Quaternary-age terrace deposits on the site. Outcrops were observed in the low relief canyon located east of the subject site. The formational materials (also considered bedrock for the site area) generally consist of a white to yellow brown, damp to moist, dense, sandstone. Generally, the upper 1 to 2 feet of the bedrock is highly weathered. In general the bedding at the subject site gently to moderately dipping in northerly to southwesterly quadrants. Some bedding is inclined out -of -slop and could present adverse effects on slope stability for the subject site. A vertical fracture was observed trending northerly. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in a region of active as well as potentially- active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed for development (Jennings, 1994), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake (see California Fault Map, Figure 2). These faults include -but are not limited to-the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 F11e:e: \wPM200\3288a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, I»c. i 0 50 100 SCALE (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO � \ L GE ES SITE LOCATION Latitude — 33.0240 N Longitude — 117.2764 W KST & Associates CALIFORNIA FAU L P W.O. 3288 -A -SC Figure 2 GeoSoils, Inc. fault zone, and the Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES KM Coronado Bank -A ua Blanca 18 29 Elsinore 29 47 La Nacion 15 24 Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 12 20 Rose Canyon 3 5 San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 28 45 Seismic!ty The acceleration- attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1987) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1987). These acceleration- attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user - specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user - selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ( "maximum credible ") and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration, as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g), is computed by any of the 14 user - selected acceleration- attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound (maximum credible) earthquake may be on the order of 0.56 g to 0.84 g, and maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.41 g to 0.51 g, assuming upper bound (maximum credible) and maximum probable events on the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 3 miles from the subject site. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 6 GeoSoiilts, Inc. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided. Seismic zone (per Figure 16 -2 *) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16 -1 *) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J *) S Seismic Coefficient C, (per Table 16 -o *) 0.44 N. Seismic Coefficient C„ (per Table 16 -R *) 0.64 N„ Near Source Factor N, (per Table 16 -S *) 1.0 Near Source Factor N„ (per Table 16 -T *) 1.18 Seismic Source Type (per Table 16 -U *) B Distance to Seismic Source 3.4 mi. (5.5 km) Upper Bound Earthquake M 6.9 * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and /or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development procedures: • Liquefaction • Tsunami • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Sieche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any ofthe nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Flee: \wp7\320o\3288a.pge Page 7 GeoSoiis, Inc. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below: Laboratory Standard The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was determined forthe major soil type encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D -1557. The moisture - density relationship obtained for these soils is shown below: SOIL TYPE BORING OR TEST PIT MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE AND DEPTH ft. DENSITY - CONTENT % L=an brown B - @ 1 -3' 126.5 10.5 Shear Testing Shear testing was performed on representative, remolded samples of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D -3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. Shear test results are presented as in Figures C -1, C -2, C -3, and C -4 in Appendix C, and as follows: PRIMARY - RESIDUAL SAMPLE LOCATION FRICTION FRICTION (Pg� ANGLE COHESION COHESION ANGLE (PSF) (DEGREES) (DEGREES) B -1 @ 1 -3' 184 31 158 (remolded) 30 B - 1 @ 2' 108 38 215 (undisturbed) 30 B -3 @ 1' 506 40 215 (undisturbed) 30 Bedrock @180' 456 35 400 34 undisturbed KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Flee: \wp7\3200\3288apge Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. Expansion Potential Expansion testing was performed on a representative samples of site soil in accordance with UBC Standard 18 -2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following table. LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL 1 -3'Silty Sand 5 V Low Corrosion /Sulfate Testing A typical sample of the site material was analyzed for corrosion /soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Sulfate exposure to concrete was determined to be moderate in accordance with Table 19 -A -4 of the UBC (1997). Soil pH was determined to be slightly acidic (pH =6.4) and saturated resistivity was determined to be moderately corrosive to ferrous metals (2,900 ohm -om). SCHEMATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Gross Stability Based on the available data, the constraints outlined above, and our stability calculations shown in Appendix D, a calculated factor -of- safety greater than 1.5 (static) and 1.15 (pseudo- static or seismic) has been obtained for the existing natural slope, located east of the subject site. Factors of safety of 1.5 (static case) and 1.15 (seismic case) are the currently accepted minimum safety factors applied to slope stability analysis for the construction industry and used by local governing agencies. Surficial Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for the natural slope, located east of the site. Our analysis indicates that this slope exhibits an adequate factor of safety against surficial failure (i.e., > 1.5), provided that the slope is properly maintained. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our site reconnaissance, test results, and review..af.the previous report, it is our - opithRi6h - th4i'the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential development. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction details. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200\3288a.P98 Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E, except where specifically superseded in the text ofthis report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representatives) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and /or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of grading. Sloping areas to receive fill should be properly benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice and guidelines specified in the Uniform Building Code. Demolition /Grubbing 1. Any existing subsurface structures and all miscellaneous debris should be removed from areas of proposed grading. 2. Any existing asphalt debris may be crushed and placed only in proposed asphalt - paved areas, provided it is mixed below or at subgrade level and away from proposed utilities and landscaped areas. 3. The project soils engineer should be notified of any previous foundation, irrigation lines, cesspools, or other subsurface structures that are uncovered during the recommended removals, so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. Septic Tank Removal 1. All existing organic solids and all liquids must be properly removed, as should the tank, in accordance of the County of San Diego Health Department requirements. i KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Re:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. 2. After cleaned of organic materials, geotechnically observed and documented, the septic tank hole should be backfilled with a lean slurry and have a minimum 5 foot soil cap below proposed grade. 3. Backfill operations should be observed by a GSI representative. Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials Due to the relatively loose condition of undocumented artificial fill, colluvium/topsoil, and weathered terrace deposits, these materials should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for settlement sensitive structures, or areas to receive compacted fill. At this time re oval da lh r.9.n1 the order of ±1 to ±5 feet should be anticipated; however, locally deeper removals may be necessary. Removals should be completed below a 1:1 projection down and away from the edge of any settlement sensitive structure and /or limit of proposed fill. Once removals are completed, the exposed bottom should be reprocessed and compacted. Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin ( ±6 -inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If soil importation is planned, a sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing, in orderto assure compatibility with the onsite soils and recommendations presented in this report. Import soils (if any) for a fill cap should be very low expansive (E.I. less than 20). The use of subdrains at the bottom of the fill cap may be necessary, and subsequently recommended based on compatibility with onsite soils. Overexcavation In orderto provide forthe uniform support of the planned structures, a min imum 3 -foot thick fill blanket is recommended for the graded pads. Any cut portion of the pads for the residences should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade and extend a minimum of 5 feet outside the limits of the proposed structure to provide lateral support or a foundation: ��or split level foundations, the overexcavation for the Power level should extend a mtnimUm of 3 feet laterally beneath the adjacent upper level of the building to provide uniform foundation support. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be overexcavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. For uniform support, the cut portion of the pad should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below proposed pad grade or 1/3(D), where (D) is the maximum fill depth beneath the foundation system for the structure, whichever is greater. The intent of the above, is to provide uniformity beneath foundations. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified, or approved in writing by this office. It is our understanding that slab -on -grade construction is desired for the proposed development. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. PreliminarTFoundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at least 24 inches square and 18 inches deep, connected by a grade beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width. Lateral Pressure 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e:lwpM200\3288a.pge Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. Footina Setbacks All footings should maintain a minimum 7 -foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H =slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet, nor need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potential is generally in the very low (expansion index [E.I.] 0 to 20) range. During grading of the site, we recommend that expansive material (if encountered) should not be placed within 3 feet of finish grade, if feasible. Therefore, it is anticipated that the finish grade materials will have a very low expansion potential. Recommendations by the project's design - structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Very Low Expansive Soils (E.I. Range 0 to 20) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for a one -story floor load and 18 inches for a two -story floor load below the lowest adjacent surface. Isolated column and panel pads or wall footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches and connected in one direction by a grade beam. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing, and in accordance with the recommendations width per UBC. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g., garage or parking area) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. 3. Concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of washed sand. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, concrete slabs should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum 6 mil, polyvinyl- chloride or equivalent membrane, with all laps sealed. This membrane should be placed on acceptable pad grade materials with the minimum 2 -inch thickness of sand placed over the visqueen to aid in uniform concrete curing. If proven by testing (i.e., sand equivalent greater than 30 and less than '/4 inch in any size dimension), some of the native sands could be utilized. 4. Concrete slabs, including garage areas, should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcement bars placed on 18 -inch centers, each way. All slab reinforcement should be supported and positioned near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. Garage slabs should be poured separately from adjacent footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. A minimum slab thickness of 4 inches is recommended. The design engineer should determine the actual thickness of the slabs based on loadings and use. 7. Premoistening is recommended forthese soils conditions, with the moisture content of the subgrade soils equal to or greater than the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for a one -story floor load and 18 inches for a two -story floor load prior to pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement. 8. In design of any additional concrete, flatwork, pools or walls, the potential for differential settlement of the soils should be considered. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS General The design parameters provided below assume that very low expansive soils (native soils) are used to backfill any retaining walls. If high to very highly expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls, increased active and at -rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design, and may be provided upon request. Building walls, below grade, should be water - proofed or damp - proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches). There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Re:e: \wp7\32W \32Wa.pge Page 14 GeoSoiis, Inc. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re- entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at -rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re- entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, hydrostatic pressures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT SELECT RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT MATERIAL HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL P.C.F. Native soil P.C.F. Gravel Level 42 35 2 to 1 60 45 The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 65 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re- entrant) and extended a minimum lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner. Wall Backfill and Drainage The above criteria assumes that very low expansive soils are used as backfill, and that hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to build up behind the wall. Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of perforated pipe placed within gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 1 /2- to 3 /4 -inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). The filter material should extend a minimum of one horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least one foot. Outlets should consist of a 4 -inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no more greater than ±100 feet apart. The use of weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 F1ee: \wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. or the top 18 inches compacted with relatively impermeable soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Retaining Wall Footin Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from competent terrace deposits to fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: a) If transitions from terrace to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum 2 -foot overexcavation for a distance of two times the height of the wall and increase overexcavation until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H (where H =wall height in feet) on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non - shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into homogeneous fill or terrace deposits. Footing Excavation Observation All footing excavations for walls and appurtenant structures should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the anticipated near surface conditions prior to the placement of steel or concrete. Based on the conditions encountered during the observations of the footing excavation, supplemental recommendations may be offered, as appropriate. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided. KS T Associates, Inc. 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas W.O.3288 -A -SC F11e:eAWp7\320013288a.pge May 31, 2002 GeoSoiis, Inc. Page 16 Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short term erosion until vegetation is established. In order to minimize erosion on a slope face, an erosion control fabric (i.e., jute matting) may be considered. From ageotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended forestablishing landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Additional Site Improvements Recommendations for additional grading, exterior concrete flatwork design and construction, including driveways, can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological orgeotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Trenching All footing trench excavations for structures and walls should be observed and approved by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineers. In addition, the potential for encountering hard spots during footing and utility trench excavations should be anticipated. If these concretions are encountered within the proposed footing trench, they should be removed, which could produce larger excavated areas within the footing or utility trenches. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and /or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from the proposed structure or into a subsurface drainage system. We would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Re:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 17 GeoSoiis, Inc. utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All utility trench backfill in structural areas, slopes, and beneath hardscape features should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Flooding /jetting is not recommended for the site soil materials. As an alternative, imported sandy material with a sand equivalent of 30 or greater, may be flooded /jetted in shallow ( ±12 inches or less) under -slab interior trenches, only. 2. Sand backfill, unless trench excavation material, should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing. 3. All trench excavations should minimally conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. 4. Soils generated from utility trench excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and towards the street. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Uverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our evaluation are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. The scope of work was performed within the limits of a budget. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subjectto change with time. KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288 -A -SC 525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program for the deterministic prediction of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near - source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, volume III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292 -293. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. 1997, Fault- rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning act with Index to Earthquake Fault Maps; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1982, Estimation of response - spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., AEG short course, seismic hazard analysis, dated June 18, 1994. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion ", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43 -102. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96 -02. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953, aerial photographs, flight line AXN -8M, photo numbers 78 and 79, scale 1 " =3,333 ± feet. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A -SC PROJECT. KST ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING B SHEET 1 OF 1 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA DATE EXCAVATED 5 -8 -02 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND ALIGER/RING SAMPLER Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole CL o ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample c a Cn 0 Ev 3 2 m c£ U E Description of Material SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM: ;. @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown to red brown, wet, loose; abundant organics. SM : : WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1' SILTY SAND, orange brown to gray brown, moist, loose. SM 109.3 10.8 55.7 TERRACE DEPOSITS: r @ 2' SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, loose to medium dense. . w. 5 SIN ;• @ 6' SAND, yellow brown to gray brown, moist, medium dense; medium grained, friable. • Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled 5 -8 -02 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA Ge ��I�C' PLATE B-1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W O. 3288 -A -SC PROJECT. KST ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING B SHEET 1 OF 1 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA DATE EXCAVATED 5 -8 -02 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER/RING SAMPLER Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole g ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample C0 0 U E w a o m' > e m co >. o Description of Material SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, wet, loose; abundant organics. SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: r : @ 1' SILTY SAND, orange brown, wet, loose. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 2' SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, loose to medium dense. f.: s: 5 . f. . f. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled 5 -8 -02 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA GeB$; PLATE B-2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W O, 3288 -A -SC PROJECT. KST ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING B -3 SHEET 1 OF 1 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA DATE EXCAVATED 5 -8 -02 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND ALIGER/RING SAMPLER Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole a c ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample 12 L yd, co . �v N 0 125 CL ?� 'v U E o m' ; m � ; o v, Description of Material SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, wet, loose; abundant organics. SM 119.9 11.7 81.6 WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: r : @ 1' SILTY SAND, orange brown, wet, loose; trace organics. s: • SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 2' SILTY SAND, orange brown, wet, loose to medium dense. s: 5 ^ Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled 5 -8 -02 Gao 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA GevauK pLATE B - BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3288 -A -SC PROJECT. KST ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING B-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA DATE EXCAVATED 5 -8 -02 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGERIRING SAMPLER Standard Penetration Test a � Water Seepage into hole 3 a d a ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample CL v U� �v y Y E o m �� m � o Description of Material ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' MULCH, 3/4" GRAVEL SM @ V SILTY SAND, red brown to brown, moist, loose to medium r : dense; trace organics. s: 5 SM :: TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 5' SILTY SAND, orange brown to red brown, moist, dense. Refusal @ 5Y2' Total Depth= 5% No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled 5-8 -02 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA Ge PLAT B-4 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. yV, p, 3288 -A -SC PROJECT.• KST ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING B SHEET 1 OF 1 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA DATE EXCAVATED 5 -8 -02 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER/RING SAMPLER Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole v c ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample CL i5 2 0 y o m' m o �, Description of Material SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; abundant organics. SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1% SILTY SAND, orange brown, damp, loose to medium dense; trace organics. Y-. N . w . SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 3'/s SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, medium dense to very dense. Refusal @ 4' Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled 5 -8 -02 5 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA Cs6a�� PLATE B-5 APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA 3,000 2,500 2,000 Z 1,500 U) V) 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Ya mc% c • B-1 1.0 Primary Shear Remolded 113.8 10.5 184 31 N ■ B-1 1.0 Residual Shear Remolded 113.8 10.5 158 30 a' 3 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST ld� 190& 5741 Palmer Way Project: KST & ASSOSIATES & Carlsbad, CA 92008 4► Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Number: 3288 -A -SC Fax (760) 931 -0915 GeoSoils, ri ' O Uate: May 2002 Figure: C -1 3,000 2,500 2,000 N a H Z LU 1,500 1,000 500 O KI 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Ya R10.82151 • B -1 2.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.3 8 38 N ■ B -1 2.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.3 30 a N Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: KST & ASSOSIATES est Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Number: 3288 -A -SC Fax: (760) 931 -0915 GveoSoilsq nc bate: May 2002 Figure: C - 2 3,000 2,500 2,000 w n 0 Z H 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 'd MC% C N • B-3 1.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 122.3 11.7 506 40 ■ B-3 1.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 122.3 11.7 a VJ Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing m GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project: KST 8 ASSOSIATES Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Number: 3288 -A -SC a Fax: (760) 931 -0915 GeoSoils' I nc Date: May 2002 Figure: C - 3 3,000 2,500 2,000 a a d Z w 1,500 y N 1,000 500 0 0 500 1 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type % Mc% c • Bedrock 880.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 108.3 1.8 456 35 N ■ Bedrock 880.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 108.3 1.8 400 34 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: KST & ASSOSIATES est Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Number. 3288 -A -SC Fax: (760) 931 -0915 GeoSoils, i nc, ate: May 2002 Figure: C - 4 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS DATA APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION OF GSTABL7 COMPUTER PROGRAM Introduction GSTABL7 is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer to develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single program. The slope analysis portion of GSTABL7 uses a modified version of the popular GSTABL7 program, originally developed at Purdue University. GSTABL7 performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the factor of safety for a layered slope using the modified Bishop or Janbu methods. This program can be used to search for the most critical surface or the factor of safety may be determined for specific surfaces. GSTABL7 Version 2.0, is programmed to handle: 1. Heterogenous soil systems 2. Anisotropic soil strength properties 3. Reinforced slopes 4. Nonlinear Mohr - Coulomb strength envelope 5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using: a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces b. Pore pressure grid c. R factor d. Constant pore water pressure 6. Pseudo - static earthquake loading 7. Surcharge boundary loads 8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular and block- shaped failure surfaces 9. Analysis of right- facing slopes 10. Both SI and Imperial units General Information If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the following publications may be consulted initially: 1. The Stability of Slopes by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and Hall, 411 pages, 2nd edition, ISBN 412 01061 5, 1992. 2. Rock Slope Engineering by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNB 0 900488 573, 1981. GeoSoils, Inc. 3. Landslides Investigation and Mitigation by A.K. Turner and R.L. Schuster (editors), Special Report 247, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 673 pages, ISBN 0 309 06208 -X, National Academy Press, 1996. GSTABL7 Features The present version of GSTABL7 contains the following features: 1. Allows user to calculate factors of safety for static stability and dynamic stability situations. 2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes. 3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding factor of safety. 4. Allows user to readily review on- screen the input slope geometry. 5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze unlimited number of circular, non - circular and block- shaped failure surfaces (i.e., bedding plane, slide plane, etc.). Input Data Input data includes the following items: 1. Unit weight, residual cohesion, residual friction angle, peak cohesion, and peak friction angle of fill material, bedding plane, and bedrock, respectively. Residual cohesion and friction angle is used for static stability analysis, whereas peak cohesion and friction angle is for dynamic stability analysis. 2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads. 3. Apparent dip of bedding plane can be specified in angular range (i.e., from 0 to 90 degrees. 4. Pseudo - static earthquake loading (an earthquake loading of 0.11 g was used in the analysis. Seismic Discussion Seismic stability analyses were approximated using a pseudo- static approach. The major difficulty in the pseudo- static approach arises from the appropriate selection of the seismic coefficient used in the analysis. The use of a static inertia force equal to this acceleration during an earthquake (rigid -body response) would be extremely conservative for several reasons including: 1) only low height, stiff /dense embankments or embankments in KST Associates, Inc. Appendix D Fi1e:e : \wp7\3200\32Wa.pge Page 2 GeoSoiiis, Inc. confined areas may respond essentially as rigid structures; 2) an earthquake's inertia force is enacted on a mass for a short time period. Therefore, replacing a transient force by a pseudo- static force representing the maximum acceleration is considered unrealistic; 3) Assuming that total pseudo- static loading is applied evenly throughout the embankment for an extended period of time is an incorrect assumption, as the length of the failure surface analyzed is usually much greaterthan the wave length of seismic waves generated by earthquakes; and 4) the seismic waves would place portions of the mass in compression and some in tension, resulting in only a limited portion of the failure surface analyzed moving in a downslope direction, at any one instant of time. The coefficients usually suggested by regulating agencies, counties and municipalities are in the range of 0.05g to 0.258. For example, past regulatory guidelines within the city and county of Los Angeles indicated that the slope stability pseudostatic coefficient = 0.15. Output Information Output information includes: 1. All input data. 2. Factors of safety for the ten most critical surfaces for static and pseudo- static stability situation. 3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the critical surfaces and the factor of safety. 4. Note, that in the analysis, at least 9000 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section for either static or pseudo- static analyses. Results of Slope Stability Calculation Table D -1 shows parameters used in slope stability calculations. Detailed output information is presented in Plates D -1 and D -2. A summary of our gross stability analysis is presented in Table D -2. KST Associates, Inc. Appendix D F1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE D -1 Soil Parameters Used UNIT WEIGHT (PCF) STRENGTH PARAMETERS MATERIAL COHESION FRICTION MOIST SATURATED (PSF) ANGLE Terrace Deposits 125 121 100 33 Delmar Formation 120 110 Aniso Aniso Bedrock TABLE D -2 Summary of Gross Stabllity Analysis AVAILABLE FACTOR OF SAFETY LOCATION NOTES STATIC SEISMIC Schematic Section A -A' 1.51 1.22 Natural Slope (Schematic) KST Associates, Inc. Appendix D R1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. ) O W Q J IL V o A Q s N U _ s Z O °3 W � w� O N N I N IA u W '" N t r+ o O Q N w. to V Z .� W v L V) Z N 4 g J_ CL O .� C W o L w � O N V V c w ch c 9 w 6 d Q D CO m L h a ay J a=' t o G)) .T O p N d N . ¢ °Qm d Lc) .° u m N d 4" aa0 V 0�vQO r+ Z V C ea 0 w (a 4--00 u ~ v0 1 V J fn :3 C CL . � O v �� O � u dui � t0 T Z , N La. J �: �! o V) o: m N m w w m ►- T-4 M 00 -1 --4 -4 N N U•) t0 � Lq M 010 t0 t0 t0 tC t0 t0 �t iv .n v v a) w ot.c •- •- 0 W H GeoSoils, Ine. N D W Q J CL � o N _ t W N o � t Z t a O Co CL ., C to W Cm N N m W N m o s � C N V .� Ln 70 tw O W Z N G d W U Y N `� 0 o - "' E .n C ° N aW N� W 8 x 1 � N d N 7 200 N d Q CU m E Lh °0pmO ;w to r.Cm_ N M > �" ■ 2Uy0O m L Ci p . m �+�' OO v ui a 0 Cm V Q U N i la O O Q 0 LO a ° 3 CL L ".-� rr O - m V �O �ZtiN La F- U U d N o C en LO U O W W M F- rl Nd00010000MC+7 .- �.,,, NNNNNri MliM!"i q �! mm my m.. CCZ - •- W y.. 1— N GeoSoiis, Inc. APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines orthe recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and /or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D- 1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D- 1556 -82, D -2937 or D -2922 and D -3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at th&4"" oAveotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval bythe governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non -earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided bythe contractor with due consideration forthe fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off -site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in -place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended bythe soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E F1e:e:\wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. conditioned should be re- compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is broughtto optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on -site soils engineer and /or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to' /2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre - stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable bythe soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill /bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off -site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and /or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D- 1557 -78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E F11e:e: \wp7\3200\3288a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 4 Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re- worked until the required density and /or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over - building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and /or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over - building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re- rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re- rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid - rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re- compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge Page 5 GeoSoiis, Inc. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and /or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re- filling of cut areas should be performed and /or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed bythe engineering geologist priorto placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in- grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge GeoSoils, Ine. Page 6 COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation bythe geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and /or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and /or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and /or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi - employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the grime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 7 Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel notfollowing the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non - encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\32W \3288a.pge GeoSoiis, Ine. Page 8 interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his /her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL -OSHA and /or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and /or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner /developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL -OSHA and /or the proper authorities. KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\3200 \3288a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A --- - - - - -- -- -- PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL - NATURAL GROUND i COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) de BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING �'��� �OQ. " SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL i %,.,,,,- NATURAL GROUND COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM IREMOYE) ' �i� doo BEDROCK TYPICAL BEN CHING \�'"' SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST-DURING GRADING. PLATE PS-1 CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12' MINIMUM 6 FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' •;•; • •• /LINEAR FT. 6' 9 ASS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED "• 'MINIMUM SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 11 /4 jd) PERFS. •. , LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. • ASTM 02751. SDR 35 OR ASTM 01527. SCHD, 40 • • 6' MINIMUM A -1 ASTM RUN IN EXCESS F SbOCFHT... 40 B -1 USE 8' J( PIPE • FILTER MATERIAL. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH i lob •3/4 INCH 90 -100 318 INCH 40 -100 NO. 4 25 -40. NO. 8 18 -33 .NO. 30 5 NO. 50 .0 -7 NO. 200 0 -3 ALTERNAT 2: PERFORATED PIPE GRAVEL AND.FILTER FABRIC 6 MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP - %* =-W 6' MINIMUM •COVER •:•' �� =V MINIMUM BEDDING 4 MINIMUM BEDDING �\ GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT' /LINEAR FT. A -2 g -2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL CLEAN 314 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG-- 2 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE BACKCUT * VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS, ���i`� BACKCUT ►t�SHOULD BE MADE NO STEEPER•THA :1 OR AS NECESSARY �� ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY CONSIDE RATIONS y DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER_ l j; PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AND /OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINEN . TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL % FOR DRAINAGE ONLY Oaf a Oaf Q (TO BE REMOVED) IEXISTING FILL) l � %% % ����� "\ LEGEND TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Oat ALLUVIUM PLATE EG- 3 0 cr. W W 0 W Z W XZ c a W Z W 4. F H Wo W Z J cr. V) H J = I c W W F- W 0 Z (' m O < H Z W I ? C Z p Y = = U . i U W C. ca W W D J J X m co I J O J d J t C.3 d < cm LL i U = a Z CL g z Z H t U) Uf O W =_ I..i� > O > > • G .s = w r F- I Z Z C � d V W O p UJ W ll'1 J 0 �- N J W W F - ti m Y W g Z ° o O C ? 0 F- N 11) a LL m 0 O. O W V � N J IL W LC W • ...� vs 4. N J W W ° _ W 0 p N m w CC 1 > Z O W W LL v J FJ- CO c9 N Z ° •- W o in Q n U W O CL ~' �.. J Q 4 c U CL J } U H N in PLATE EG -4 LL Z �r; 0 0 ~ z S z LL W F. W N ° V1 O M V Q N o O W O Z Q LA m S a o O 0 en p W. a 1 I 1 1 u• y< Z° 0 m z Q `n n , W w Q OQ N m 0 o C ° LL O w N D m V D. w w Z a J N 0 a W 0 3 z Q 0 w J of o x x Z 0 LU Z W LL z L) z z '' °° ° &° w o IL N LLJ N o w a d > Z o o Q J a > z o Q = ; z z Z z 0 z z w Z Z ° a Mw m w N Z tL O Z > W }• &n t•1 = 0 W w Q In m' a O V CWI m cl, m d N O J m 0 Q Q J ~ �/� a 1- V) °_ 2 W LL d 0° 0 O 4 W W x J U m tn tn LL W = W= C� M S S C O O w m v m z Q = O Q o W _J Q F- d LL U) z w to > ° f - w w z -i a I cv °z O m ? w a ° o °. 0 IL U. Z C > o d w I- d 0 ° > W d z z , r C) O G. .r a O w p W J Z o W IX Z • H W= Z W LL 0 0 W J u W H w C%A W a a o o c° m a Z Q o m z > = LL d LL I ° O z_ i= N 0 W J IL w 0 O V t9 I3. w > O to v W Z d Z Z K w F- I- o d N Z M W J 'a !•- W W O 0 - 1- O O -1 d to 0 1L !- $ F O 1 O J > a W W Ix m LL W O tef Z w d� N O W 0 0 S O O LL G 2 d W co d O J F ° FW- d W OJ 1- Z Z LL W p S = � a O y O =, p In tn ~' z �- d d Z C) O Z d O Z Q O r o N C O a O. D H LL Z d 0 W W w w �. o 3 =° w o w • M IL a ,�; 1 "- w a m w z Y Q F- w o z cr- 2 d a 4 4 0 >' 3 a. d n. W H C) C3 O n W� V Z Z J I '� O V F' d. F m° U. -J m W ~ Z W W • 0 S w W Z o F- d J J eA • W d > 0 LL �•- C) d d w= N O O m H M Q 1- Z M 0 0 O W O U w N V1 O of w N Z wnwINIw.Z J U � nwlNlw, � : •• ••� � — Z • • • • • • � • 1 1 " 1 PV N � a a v PLATE EG -5 0 w Z_ J S 2 J O W W w U. Z 2 CO 1-- Z O C Z N p W O H v w 3 �p Z IL C Z X N CJ U w Z V O O O 3 l Z V , W Z Z X Z i = W Q W m LO V Z 0 Z Y' Q < Z O O Z S S w V U. CL C. Q V = CL W W O Z w 0 Z O O Ul Q o r a d z F= a 1- = O W W O OD W Z V N d y IL w W W d. 1 w J. N Q W J CG m Q C O O W O N O Z N O Z Q Q = Z Z .J ...I Z W~ p v! Q J W Z 7 / W C m ti. J L.i� lL Q J N O W t J o n. CL $ w z o z S J OC C7 � �` � OC C7 H a W -� 0IL� Z c n �_ to Z N z LL' O T � W 3 _ o � —jib CL O = N O W — ' l W O I �" W W _ CL � Y O Z LL Y `� Z :3 OC LL IL 0 O V p C = < Z O Z CL X m 1 F- N Q O IL _ N LU ? S W S W Q W 3 J T 2 0 O Z p O U. F- �• O J W F n- Q O Z N p W Y N C 1- J F- o s = W a m o us f- = s Z m PLATE EG— 6 . O Z Q O O Z J / Q W O J > w LL Q Z F- G X Z O W W W IL O Q m O CL L 1. j z W Z W O a- U ti O O � Z LY c9 ti W Z V J / Z N .r a v J Z > ' [r M Li } N W L ~ ire W O r = J z o F- o 0 J � n - U. N W Q Z o N v p L•- CL' F- a /�� F- Co LC w O a W CL O F- 0 3 N 8 m < o I ...� m J J D / H uj W U I-- w �Y o ; z W s s s 0 z z M 0 J m x N Z . W � 0 n LL J J a. o a Q m } � Lr N = W O Q c Z Z � O O z z O CL w 0 0 1-- o = = J m _ N N Q c. Q Z a a � a o V U O Lr G W 2 m PLATE EG -7 W J Y � p Q �� 0 z O N W O W W F- G W Q J Q W z CM W O W Z LL W Z Z ex W Z ° co c9 W J W > Z W W 0 N Z UJ < _ z W 0 U Z O. m Q I.- W Q O N x W N W < 3 � W Z lz Z O Z �' U n 0 W W J �, J < 0= W �' �O� .Z CL LL W z < Q ;i `!� ` = W p 3 O W c O z $- Z 0 LL W L O < = O < H Z f /'1 W d p W W J to 1- U W Z Z O �� m J O< W< W J W Z F<- Y - 0 C-) U a Z N N U W Z cx z y 0 W m H Z O W W N Q U I.- m W O H W LO O a J o � In = o Z Z F- W W> )- 0� O U Z Z O la W d 7 t ~� O= W Z O 2 � N� W W =< W O W v W J c U. L.J.. to LL LL W W W LO O W J Ld O J n LA W C 0: lit r- m J '+ z = W LL Z Z I, W e I w cr. Z Q m i 3`v o' 1- m in O. W N I L W < Iii 0 z I Q O J IL � N CL > W W u 1, ....I X W < 3•- < m W W M W w H J LL W II 2 r ' O Cm 14 O = m ((n 3 1�- 0 C4 H 0 z PLATE EG — S Z W I < O CL w a m W O V a W O Q ` Z W Z Z Z C7 Li � O Z W a W O N W C CL IL '� W 0 Ir "\ O W N Y = O 0 �� O } z J Z �O m O W D O m W Uli IL Z 1..i. !r IW- Z m z W p p O _1 W m Z 0 W Q O J O t V O Y 3 O O = D In W I" { F ti 7 / a Z O a W Us Z p W W Z ' 1 LI W LL O O �j O m Z J O LLY g ��Q N m O O a 3� o c� c ljj . J Q o � �� o o a� Ll. ~ ~ c O W o Q >•- Z W 3 Z 0 V m } Q X LL W O Z W W W y W !r { W N y O J O Z Z O W L ILn N _ v Z H W m z z Z U. •- �,; LL O O W N O _ O O Z IL M. o ac IL o a IL w z � w H Y PLATE EG- 9 1 } W V m LL a z cc f 2 Y `� m W 2 < � V � Z N W c m w O W 1� p C W o 'd ° wl �� a x qc W% o Z a w w W r� w Z CL J '� eh p O W O O Z r V W 11 Q 7 °� ago W Z W m n Z o Z LL W IA O �> m W m W O O m o D ce. O Z N U Z � s Z M c �J�� '�� Z m o o w .l N a ���� a m Cl LL 0 w m / N x / W. Z O Q W W LL �' N O Y Z 0 N O CO w CL 0 w H W J a F' Q J W F.. d J U J N Z Y O LL w d =� J �� g = O Z U N d Q ~ Q O W N Z -C N W W V. V = W �_- Z C Z ZO _N.t Q _ a _ w o O Z Z Z ~� N a. Z Z Z J W w N Y m Z 0 uJ LU W Z " v a w N O Q > W 0 0 '�' N H W J _ U U W Z Q Z Z w Q = J O W Z O U Q w d O Q O Z Q � PLATE EG--10 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRAD !� 5' MINIM M PAD GRAD E OVEREXCAVATE'AND RECOMPACT COMPACTED FILL T V/// /\ /� 'o .0 �/\ /�� /��t \/ 3' MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL rf TYPICAL BENCHING //A // CUT -FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE PAD GRADE R V NSU 0 EREX•CAVATE••' h COMPACTED FILL �� VMS AND RECOMPACT ' ` 3' MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE: *DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT —FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG -11 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 114' STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/4' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF P LATE. 3/4' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND. BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5' INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE 1 1 MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. _.MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL -rM- - r - %r LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. I � 1 � 5' 1 MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5 F y VERTICAL WITHIN A 5' RAOIUS OF PLATE BASE- / � `♦ 2 . 1• ' ' •. • ' .' - ' • ' BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5'(VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HANO`COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 51RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG -14 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRA 318' DIAMETER X 6" LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT DIAMETER X 3 112' LENGTH HOLE CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG--15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW ' vl}I�cLE SPOIL PILE • TEST PIT ' ( NOT TO SCALE) TOP VIEW l� loo FEET so FEET in so FEET FLAG . • �.: .:w I SPOIL '~ TEST PIT.';;:. YBiiCLE PI : r � FLAG APPROXIMATE CENTER U OF TEST PIT 0 ! NOT TO SCALE Pi ATIP OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) v4 00 00 00 15' MINIMUM (A) 20' MINIMUM (e) °O co 00 0o co ao � ao 5' MINIMUM (A co 00 !7 -1 50 MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL . VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 1 100' MAXIMUM (BL, r 15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM (v(GI 15' MINIMUM 5' MINIMUM (C �\ FROM CA WALL ••MINIMUM (C) EDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. IS) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100'MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. – (D) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A D -9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN PLATE RD -1 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT I GRANULAR MATERIAL �- -- - • • LARGE ROCK COMPACTED FILL _.. t SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE 1 I COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE t t 1 � t ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS, COMPACTED FILL DENSIFIED BY FLOODING , -- - LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER � 00 MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTILI . L 20' mum 70VE=RSIUZE �LAYE�R� LOPE FACE COMPACTED FILL *MINIMUM FILL SLOPE CLEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH TOP VIEW PLATE RD -2 ELEVATION IN FEET to m O p 0 O 0 rt c •0 m O O _« m C 1 ' rr O CL O CL x %C m r 3 °, � rt Q o 0 3 rt RI c. O o d a c� m Z !3! m A p O O a .« 3 m 0 m o 0 ' �* o w 0 m n 0 d � w CL J J O M W N J e N e N O m o m C o N � O 0 2 fl. N d CL o - � m .� C) r+ b CO3 •v a n m ocr) : n CA o M S Go �/�/ = fJl p O 0 °> Al m rn N � ELEVATION IN FEET _n y O 0:0 N m Z o mg M m r m 000., "= m. o oy N n O N o i s \ \\ rrl - IC . O IZ Zzi r, 4 7 y to '� 4 c., . fb G, v Sy N NO R , � 1 , s rrl ° ,90 > ot � iv • a r + , a � n, ° L p y S � U S , p s _ .p e 0 I > CL ol c ° a _ ° O � � o > r° o - tp � Q r l r Z v J o r r © zzoZOO FP aOt���O Up rn r . �O r Q) dnpo n °ZZ Qom v Q -- o r y - o _ v rn ••� D 0 .0 CL 1 }! m -. J r A . x o . �`� 2 ni rn cn 'a 3 3 C ° 0 t� 17 � m a 3 Z N oo v v CL 4) "n °t C CL A C7 .. ••! O W O o � '' ..o ° 3 a c r O 2 Cl O O s ' 171 Z D m Z 0. A � m 7 H . 4 O N O K A O .•. <D Z m O m �_ cD O_ y fl. / v p Q p n ,• y �•� O OC Q Q „ O �!! ,Slytel f ngineering and Surveying, Inc. O S 060) 741 -6979 6